Many people nowadays have at least heard of the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. study about the enviromental impact on lithium-ion battery production LINK

It showed that the production of an Tesla 100kWh Lithium-Ion battery caused up to 15-20 metric tons of CO2, while a 30kWh Lithium-Ion battery for an Nissan leaf still came it at 4.5 - 6 tons.

Since then the discussions between ICE car drivers and BEV fans are going on. However, recently on german Television an documentary was aired, which showed some further facts on battery production.

An lithium mine in Chile's atacama desert every day consumes 21 million liters of ground water which later will evaporate into nohting, thus drying out everyone and everything around it.

Another resource required for Li-Ion batteries is cobalt. This material is mined in countries. like Congo. Miners live in severe poverty and inhale the poisonous byproducts of their work every day.

The artificially hyped BEV construction contest between car makers inherit the same grotesque flaws of previous Diesel and downsizing developments. In their ever ongoing competition for higher, bigger, farther, companies are forcing lithium batteries far beyond their natural boundaries and into applications they were never designed for in the first place. Just like the idiotic examples of 1 Liter midget turbos boosted to 140HP and more, also these batteries are getting pushed to ever higher capacitiy, charging voltages and thermic strains.

The aluminum ore, iron ore, and coal used for the engine and exhaust system also have inherent resource use and emissions. Not to mention the process of crude oil production and refining. The way to sort this out is to have a market for emissions and all these things will get priced into the final product, and may the best technology win.

We are all aware of the resource costs and emissions for conventional vehicles. However, what this documentation shows is, that it's utter nonsense to pursuit BEVs as ultima ratio, as the resource costs in many cases far over exceed the costs of conventional vehicles. And at this point we're not even talking of the emissions caused in driving, since most BEVs get their energy from fossil fired power plants in the evening and night hours.

Pakos M wrote:First you start a war, then you drill, then you move the oil to the refinery, then to the gas stations and finally to your vehicle, and you still believe that this procedure costs less?

What war? When did this war being started for oil happen? The US never started a war for oil, neither did Europe. We import most of our oil from Canada and Mexico, US produces over half of its oil. Saudi Arabia is our biggest middle east oil exporter and we never started a war with Saudi Arabia.

Are you trying to say the US started a war in Iraq for oil and that is the norm? That is totally not true. US pushed Saddams Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in the early 90's, long long time after we have been using oil/gas for cars, because they invaded a ally of ours, we did not start that war nor did we start drilling after the war. After Saddam was removed from power 10 years later for treaty/sanction violations the US never started drilling either, there is basically no oil in Afghanistan and that is basically all of our Middle East conflicts so where exactly is this war for oil theory coming from, never had a war with Canada or Mexico for oil.

It is the norm, and i am not pointing the US. Europe recently attacked Lybia, Turkey is harrassing Cyprus because of the oil exploration. Same think happens with the Russian oil and gas pipes. Conflicts.

I don't think the US is really up for "more wars" for oil. There is a global oil glut at the moment and US domestic production is off the charts, they don't need to go anywhere right now to get their fuel.

tomek wrote:The aluminum ore, iron ore, and coal used for the engine and exhaust system also have inherent resource use and emissions. Not to mention the process of crude oil production and refining. The way to sort this out is to have a market for emissions and all these things will get priced into the final product, and may the best technology win.

Aluminum and steel are the most recycled materials on Earth. Granted, making any new car is a expensive (resource wise) endeavor, but you can't bury your head into the sand and not think that Lithium extraction also has its issues. If you a cradle to grave analysis for different vehicles, the most efficient ones on Earth are actually the CNG/LPG powered steel-bodied cars.

Unlike Aluminum and Steel, there is a lot of growth required for lithium extraction in any case since there is way more demand. While there is the environmental cost to consider, I'm sure that Chile, Australia etc. are more than happy to be part of a lithium "gold rush".

CarPhreakD wrote:I don't think the US is really up for "more wars" for oil. There is a global oil glut at the moment and US domestic production is off the charts, they don't need to go anywhere right now to get their fuel.

tomek wrote:The aluminum ore, iron ore, and coal used for the engine and exhaust system also have inherent resource use and emissions. Not to mention the process of crude oil production and refining. The way to sort this out is to have a market for emissions and all these things will get priced into the final product, and may the best technology win.

Aluminum and steel are the most recycled materials on Earth. Granted, making any new car is a expensive (resource wise) endeavor, but you can't bury your head into the sand and not think that Lithium extraction also has its issues. If you a cradle to grave analysis for different vehicles, the most efficient ones on Earth are actually the CNG/LPG powered steel-bodied cars.

Unlike Aluminum and Steel, there is a lot of growth required for lithium extraction in any case since there is way more demand. While there is the environmental cost to consider, I'm sure that Chile, Australia etc. are more than happy to be part of a lithium "gold rush".

Most (~2/3) aluminum and steel supply on the planet is from raw materials, not recycled (see links below). There is plenty of demand other than engines and exhaust systems to take up recycled supply. When electric vehicles take over the market then battery materials will also become widely recycled.

Do you have a source for the cradle-to-grave study? Like I said in my previous post, lets make a market for emissions, and that will determine the most economic way forward - may the best technology win!

CarPhreakD wrote:I don't think the US is really up for "more wars" for oil. There is a global oil glut at the moment and US domestic production is off the charts, they don't need to go anywhere right now to get their fuel.

tomek wrote:The aluminum ore, iron ore, and coal used for the engine and exhaust system also have inherent resource use and emissions. Not to mention the process of crude oil production and refining. The way to sort this out is to have a market for emissions and all these things will get priced into the final product, and may the best technology win.

Aluminum and steel are the most recycled materials on Earth. Granted, making any new car is a expensive (resource wise) endeavor, but you can't bury your head into the sand and not think that Lithium extraction also has its issues. If you a cradle to grave analysis for different vehicles, the most efficient ones on Earth are actually the CNG/LPG powered steel-bodied cars.

Unlike Aluminum and Steel, there is a lot of growth required for lithium extraction in any case since there is way more demand. While there is the environmental cost to consider, I'm sure that Chile, Australia etc. are more than happy to be part of a lithium "gold rush".

Most (~2/3) aluminum and steel supply on the planet is from raw materials, not recycled (see links below). There is plenty of demand other than engines and exhaust systems to take up recycled supply. When electric vehicles take over the market then battery materials will also become widely recycled.

Do you have a source for the cradle-to-grave study? Like I said in my previous post, lets make a market for emissions, and that will determine the most economic way forward - may the best technology win!

take a look at a teardown video of a Model 3 battery pack and tell us how that will EVER be recycled efficiently? Hint: it's landfill.

Even if they COULD efficiently get to the materials inside every one of the ~5000 individual cells that are installed in the battery pack, it requires incredible amounts of energy to liberate the useful materials, and even then, the lithium that's recovered is not pure enough to be used for new battery applications.

That's not even taking into account how exactly the rest of the car will be built. It's not like BEVs are made of some mythical resource-free metal. The Model 3 is a regular-ass steel car (in fact the car uses a grotesque amount of steel because of how many jigsaw pieces Tesla used to construct it), and the S is aluminum.

And yeah, NEW aluminum and steel will outpace recycling because of the heavy demand for these materials.

You can find C2Gs from the DoE's website, for example. Although actually, looking at their latest report it appears that the PHEVs and FCEVs have a slight lead in the "best cradle to grave GHG gas emissions" with average improvements in the coming years.

Interestingly, there is a "sweet spot" in BEV battery capacity that dictates their total emissions requirements. A much theoretically larger "BEV210" vehicle has worse emissions than a "BEV90" (the number indicating range). The more range, the worse this will get. That's mainly due to the battery.

CarPhreakD wrote:I don't think the US is really up for "more wars" for oil. There is a global oil glut at the moment and US domestic production is off the charts, they don't need to go anywhere right now to get their fuel.

tomek wrote:The aluminum ore, iron ore, and coal used for the engine and exhaust system also have inherent resource use and emissions. Not to mention the process of crude oil production and refining. The way to sort this out is to have a market for emissions and all these things will get priced into the final product, and may the best technology win.

Aluminum and steel are the most recycled materials on Earth. Granted, making any new car is a expensive (resource wise) endeavor, but you can't bury your head into the sand and not think that Lithium extraction also has its issues. If you a cradle to grave analysis for different vehicles, the most efficient ones on Earth are actually the CNG/LPG powered steel-bodied cars.

Unlike Aluminum and Steel, there is a lot of growth required for lithium extraction in any case since there is way more demand. While there is the environmental cost to consider, I'm sure that Chile, Australia etc. are more than happy to be part of a lithium "gold rush".

Most (~2/3) aluminum and steel supply on the planet is from raw materials, not recycled (see links below). There is plenty of demand other than engines and exhaust systems to take up recycled supply. When electric vehicles take over the market then battery materials will also become widely recycled.

Do you have a source for the cradle-to-grave study? Like I said in my previous post, lets make a market for emissions, and that will determine the most economic way forward - may the best technology win!

take a look at a teardown video of a Model 3 battery pack and tell us how that will EVER be recycled efficiently? Hint: it's landfill.

Even if they COULD efficiently get to the materials inside every one of the ~5000 individual cells that are installed in the battery pack, it requires incredible amounts of energy to liberate the useful materials, and even then, the lithium that's recovered is not pure enough to be used for new battery applications.

You are comparing a recycling process run at scale for a century to a new application, of course one has a current advantage over the other. This will be a challenge just like there have been 1000's of other challenges which have been overcome throughout human history. There are already companies working on this, for example:

https://www.li-cycle.com/

Furthermore, why are you placing a pre-judgement on a solution? This is what markets are for. A market for emissions will sort all this out. What I really dont understand is why many people (in general, not you specifically) are so entrenched and vehemently opposed to new solutions to reduce emissions before the appropriate mechanisms have been put in place to have a level playing field. Lets let the economics play out. The reality is that the economics of BEV are improving quickly so these arguments will be under increasing pressure moving forward.

CarPhreakD wrote:That's not even taking into account how exactly the rest of the car will be built. It's not like BEVs are made of some mythical resource-free metal. The Model 3 is a regular-ass steel car (in fact the car uses a grotesque amount of steel because of how many jigsaw pieces Tesla used to construct it), and the S is aluminum.

And yeah, NEW aluminum and steel will outpace recycling because of the heavy demand for these materials.

You can find C2Gs from the DoE's website, for example. Although actually, looking at their latest report it appears that the PHEVs and FCEVs have a slight lead in the "best cradle to grave GHG gas emissions" with average improvements in the coming years.

Interestingly, there is a "sweet spot" in BEV battery capacity that dictates their total emissions requirements. A much theoretically larger "BEV210" vehicle has worse emissions than a "BEV90" (the number indicating range). The more range, the worse this will get. That's mainly due to the battery.

Yes, and gasoline vehicles are not made of some mythical resource-free metal either. What is your point? This is a question of total all-in emissions from drive train, battery, and fuel assuming the rest of the car is roughly the same.

Thanks for the report, really interesting. From the chart in the exec summary it looks like total emissions for electrified vehicles are the lowest, currently and in the future, which supports my point. The BEV 210 is slightly higher currently but lower in future case. Am I missing something?

My Tesla Model 3 Performance model was barely pulling ahead of a current model year Honda Civic today from 90mph to 120mph.

Well done, Honda!

Just curious, some people are saying the Tesla never need to be service, aside from tires etc.. how true is this? I just saw a video where they take out fluid the electric motor?

They need less service but BEVs still have a coolant and refrigerant loop.

It's also no secret that BEVs run out of steam at "relatively" low speeds because most are geared for best operation below 100 mph.

True, but in the daily grind of the 405, EVs (FCEVs, BEVs, iMMDs, PHEVs) are awesome.

Your lane is slowing down.
Next lane has an opening.
A Prius is keeping too big a gap in the next lane. (*)
You punch it.
Get in that lane, pronto! Right now! No wait! Torque...
Then, and only then, signal the turn "On your face, you useless POS in your crummy slow hybrid driving slower than the little old ladies of Pasadena!!"
Awesome.
You ought to try it.

(*) yeah, those crummy Prius drivers (**) in their own Private Idahoes, usually being tailgated by someone who would shoot the MFs if they could.

(**) I ought to note than in the Bay Area I ran into some aggressive Prius drivers... Crazy, absolutely crazy. Needless to say I was driving the Ridgeline, and I was bigger and much more powerful at anything above 2 mph.

It's interesting from a utility perspective.
Looking at the big one in California on the verge of bankruptcy, I'm sure they don't care much for any cradle to grave studies around BEV.

Perhaps decentralised systems like houses with powerwalls are the only viable solution in future and big aging and consuming utility infrastructure will be replaced.
Something I'm sure Honda wanted to pursue at some stage.
Not that that means anything.

CarPhreakD wrote:I don't think the US is really up for "more wars" for oil. There is a global oil glut at the moment and US domestic production is off the charts, they don't need to go anywhere right now to get their fuel.

tomek wrote:The aluminum ore, iron ore, and coal used for the engine and exhaust system also have inherent resource use and emissions. Not to mention the process of crude oil production and refining. The way to sort this out is to have a market for emissions and all these things will get priced into the final product, and may the best technology win.

Aluminum and steel are the most recycled materials on Earth. Granted, making any new car is a expensive (resource wise) endeavor, but you can't bury your head into the sand and not think that Lithium extraction also has its issues. If you a cradle to grave analysis for different vehicles, the most efficient ones on Earth are actually the CNG/LPG powered steel-bodied cars.

Unlike Aluminum and Steel, there is a lot of growth required for lithium extraction in any case since there is way more demand. While there is the environmental cost to consider, I'm sure that Chile, Australia etc. are more than happy to be part of a lithium "gold rush".

Most (~2/3) aluminum and steel supply on the planet is from raw materials, not recycled (see links below). There is plenty of demand other than engines and exhaust systems to take up recycled supply. When electric vehicles take over the market then battery materials will also become widely recycled.

Do you have a source for the cradle-to-grave study? Like I said in my previous post, lets make a market for emissions, and that will determine the most economic way forward - may the best technology win!

take a look at a teardown video of a Model 3 battery pack and tell us how that will EVER be recycled efficiently? Hint: it's landfill.

Even if they COULD efficiently get to the materials inside every one of the ~5000 individual cells that are installed in the battery pack, it requires incredible amounts of energy to liberate the useful materials, and even then, the lithium that's recovered is not pure enough to be used for new battery applications.

You are comparing a recycling process run at scale for a century to a new application, of course one has a current advantage over the other. This will be a challenge just like there have been 1000's of other challenges which have been overcome throughout human history. There are already companies working on this, for example:

https://www.li-cycle.com/

Furthermore, why are you placing a pre-judgement on a solution? This is what markets are for. A market for emissions will sort all this out. What I really dont understand is why many people (in general, not you specifically) are so entrenched and vehemently opposed to new solutions to reduce emissions before the appropriate mechanisms have been put in place to have a level playing field. Lets let the economics play out. The reality is that the economics of BEV are improving quickly so these arguments will be under increasing pressure moving forward.

longhorn wrote:Everyone in the biz is trying to get Cobalt out, but I have my doubts its due to the "conflict" story. It must be expensive and so everyone is finding a replacement agent.

I believe Cobalt is like a stabilizer, so whatever takes it place better do its job correctly.

When it comes to EVs either a car company will make a no excuses EV or a "compliant" car to get by regs (looking at you Honda, 89 miles range, really?).

Actually, there is a conflict minerals compliance certification (per the SEC) required at suppliers that state that what they're sourcing doesn't come from specific conflict zones. So that is a actual concern, since the source of origin for things like cobalt is actually surprisingly hard to determine.

CarPhreakD wrote:That's not even taking into account how exactly the rest of the car will be built. It's not like BEVs are made of some mythical resource-free metal. The Model 3 is a regular-ass steel car (in fact the car uses a grotesque amount of steel because of how many jigsaw pieces Tesla used to construct it), and the S is aluminum.

And yeah, NEW aluminum and steel will outpace recycling because of the heavy demand for these materials.

You can find C2Gs from the DoE's website, for example. Although actually, looking at their latest report it appears that the PHEVs and FCEVs have a slight lead in the "best cradle to grave GHG gas emissions" with average improvements in the coming years.

Interestingly, there is a "sweet spot" in BEV battery capacity that dictates their total emissions requirements. A much theoretically larger "BEV210" vehicle has worse emissions than a "BEV90" (the number indicating range). The more range, the worse this will get. That's mainly due to the battery.

Yes, and gasoline vehicles are not made of some mythical resource-free metal either. What is your point? This is a question of total all-in emissions from drive train, battery, and fuel assuming the rest of the car is roughly the same.

Thanks for the report, really interesting. From the chart in the exec summary it looks like total emissions for electrified vehicles are the lowest, currently and in the future, which supports my point. The BEV 210 is slightly higher currently but lower in future case. Am I missing something?

Yes, "All in", which is why the cradle to grave analysis is important.

You are indeed missing something. First, a 90 mile range BEV is pretty much useless; the 210 number is similar to a number of newest gen BEVs on the road like the Leaf, Model 3, etc. and over its lifetime they're not much better than hybrids and are worse than PHEVs and FCEVs. The numbers also get worse the more batteries you add.

But most importantly, look at the 'levelized' cost of driving and 'cost of avoided GHGs'. BEVs compared to other alternatives are the most expensive solutions, especially with added range.

CarPhreakD wrote:That's not even taking into account how exactly the rest of the car will be built. It's not like BEVs are made of some mythical resource-free metal. The Model 3 is a regular-ass steel car (in fact the car uses a grotesque amount of steel because of how many jigsaw pieces Tesla used to construct it), and the S is aluminum.

And yeah, NEW aluminum and steel will outpace recycling because of the heavy demand for these materials.

You can find C2Gs from the DoE's website, for example. Although actually, looking at their latest report it appears that the PHEVs and FCEVs have a slight lead in the "best cradle to grave GHG gas emissions" with average improvements in the coming years.

Interestingly, there is a "sweet spot" in BEV battery capacity that dictates their total emissions requirements. A much theoretically larger "BEV210" vehicle has worse emissions than a "BEV90" (the number indicating range). The more range, the worse this will get. That's mainly due to the battery.

Yes, and gasoline vehicles are not made of some mythical resource-free metal either. What is your point? This is a question of total all-in emissions from drive train, battery, and fuel assuming the rest of the car is roughly the same.

Thanks for the report, really interesting. From the chart in the exec summary it looks like total emissions for electrified vehicles are the lowest, currently and in the future, which supports my point. The BEV 210 is slightly higher currently but lower in future case. Am I missing something?

Yes, "All in", which is why the cradle to grave analysis is important.

You are indeed missing something. First, a 90 mile range BEV is pretty much useless; the 210 number is similar to a number of newest gen BEVs on the road like the Leaf, Model 3, etc. and over its lifetime they're not much better than hybrids and are worse than PHEVs and FCEVs. The numbers also get worse the more batteries you add.

But most importantly, look at the 'levelized' cost of driving and 'cost of avoided GHGs'. BEVs compared to other alternatives are the most expensive solutions, especially with added range.

Why is 90 mile range useless? That would take care of most urban applications and a large proportion of suburban as well. The full 400 mile range of gasoline cars is actually used very rarely as a proportion of all miles driven. Having said that, long range versions of teslas and other new offerings are closer to the 300-350 range.

On the all-in emissions ranges - for current BEV they are likely assuming current grid electricity mix which still has a lot of coal and gas. Which is why the lower end of the range is lower for BEV and H2 - of course the long-term thesis here is to have a low emissions electricity supply. Nobody is saying run electric vehicles powered by coal.

Another huge issue I just noticed is for all the combustion applications they are assuming fuel from "pyrolysis" which is a fancy way of saying biofuels from cutting down trees and other things laying around in the forest. This still involves a lot of ghg emissions but depends on the assumption of a cycle where new trees will absorb more co2 as they grow and offset emissions from combustion etc....from everything I know about this, it is a very suspect story which depends on believing in this long-term cycle. But even without this issue on the ghg offset, there is a lot of particulates and heavy emissions coming from this process. Many in the energy community have moved away from considering this a truly sustainable and renewable solution. Put me in that camp, I dont really buy the thesis of biomass/pyrolysis. You talk about mining of materials for batteries as a challenge, think how many trees we would need to harvest to make this work.

For the higher levelized cost - the cost equation between bev and combustion would change significantly if there were a price/market for emissions. Like I have said several times on this thread, without this you cannot possibly have a fair comparison. In addition, the cost of bev is improving quickly (10-20%/yr cost decline for batteries) whereas the cost of combustion is stagnant, the case for which is weaker by the minute.

CarPhreakD wrote:I don't think the US is really up for "more wars" for oil. There is a global oil glut at the moment and US domestic production is off the charts, they don't need to go anywhere right now to get their fuel.

tomek wrote:The aluminum ore, iron ore, and coal used for the engine and exhaust system also have inherent resource use and emissions. Not to mention the process of crude oil production and refining. The way to sort this out is to have a market for emissions and all these things will get priced into the final product, and may the best technology win.

Aluminum and steel are the most recycled materials on Earth. Granted, making any new car is a expensive (resource wise) endeavor, but you can't bury your head into the sand and not think that Lithium extraction also has its issues. If you a cradle to grave analysis for different vehicles, the most efficient ones on Earth are actually the CNG/LPG powered steel-bodied cars.

Unlike Aluminum and Steel, there is a lot of growth required for lithium extraction in any case since there is way more demand. While there is the environmental cost to consider, I'm sure that Chile, Australia etc. are more than happy to be part of a lithium "gold rush".

Most (~2/3) aluminum and steel supply on the planet is from raw materials, not recycled (see links below). There is plenty of demand other than engines and exhaust systems to take up recycled supply. When electric vehicles take over the market then battery materials will also become widely recycled.

Do you have a source for the cradle-to-grave study? Like I said in my previous post, lets make a market for emissions, and that will determine the most economic way forward - may the best technology win!

take a look at a teardown video of a Model 3 battery pack and tell us how that will EVER be recycled efficiently? Hint: it's landfill.

Even if they COULD efficiently get to the materials inside every one of the ~5000 individual cells that are installed in the battery pack, it requires incredible amounts of energy to liberate the useful materials, and even then, the lithium that's recovered is not pure enough to be used for new battery applications.

You are comparing a recycling process run at scale for a century to a new application, of course one has a current advantage over the other. This will be a challenge just like there have been 1000's of other challenges which have been overcome throughout human history. There are already companies working on this, for example:

https://www.li-cycle.com/

Furthermore, why are you placing a pre-judgement on a solution? This is what markets are for. A market for emissions will sort all this out. What I really dont understand is why many people (in general, not you specifically) are so entrenched and vehemently opposed to new solutions to reduce emissions before the appropriate mechanisms have been put in place to have a level playing field. Lets let the economics play out. The reality is that the economics of BEV are improving quickly so these arguments will be under increasing pressure moving forward.

So the li-cycle.com thing is the basis for your optimism?

It is just one example that I found with a quick search. If I took more time I could probably find more. The point is not that I think li-cycle is be-all-end-all, it is that industry is working on it. Profit motive is a powerful thing. It is still early days in the move to electric so to throw up your hands and say there is no solution does not seem reasonable.

90 mile BEVs are useless. In the US we refer to them as "compliance specials", since in the northern part of the United States, most fall significantly short of their mileage ratings. During the winter, range cuts down to half.

"Nobody is saying run electric vehicles powered by coal", except this is the reality right now. The United States isn't even the worst instigator, since China, Germany, et al. are still using a substantial amount of coal. You can clearly see that BEV benefits depending on how electricity is generated.

tomek wrote:For the higher levelized cost - the cost equation between bev and combustion would change significantly if there were a price/market for emissions. Like I have said several times on this thread, without this you cannot possibly have a fair comparison. In addition, the cost of bev is improving quickly (10-20%/yr cost decline for batteries) whereas the cost of combustion is stagnant, the case for which is weaker by the minute.

So you're saying that in order for BEVs to be considered cost competitive, an artificial market needs to be introduced to get a fair comparison? Sounds oppressive, especially to poor people.

tomek wrote:... The reality is that the economics of BEV are improving quickly so these arguments will be under increasing pressure moving forward.

My '14 and '15 Accord iMMD sedans had a per tank range of almost 600 miles and I could refuel them like a normal car.

And, they had that deep down instant torque and throttle response of an EV.

Honestly, serial hybrids are the future. And the past, just check out the US railroads. Those locomotives in the West are all diesel-electric hybrids for a very good reason.

FCEVs are likely the best second compromise.

Hybrids definitely offer a good compromise to get more range and quick refueling combined with brake regen and urban electric operation. My thinking is that as battery costs continue to decline (currently 10-20%/yr), the electric proportion of hybrids will continue to increase with each model cycle until we arrive at full electric for most models.

Hydrogen is another interesting technology except 2x electricity required (vs bev) because of higher losses down the chain. The costs are coming down as well though, the Mirai is ~$60k. Do you know if that covers production cost or are they losing money on each like some have claimed?